‘The Blind Side’: Predictable Critics, Predictable Criticism
by Dallas JenkinsI haven’t seen “The Blind Side” yet, so I won’t say anything about the quality of the film. But based on the trailer and the true story, my wife and I are as excited about this as any film in a long time. It tells the true story of the adoption of Michael Oher by the Tuohy family in Tennessee and how they helped him go from homeless teenager to professional football star. The book was incredible, the story miraculous. We’re especially excited because we’re big adoption advocates, currently in the middle of our first of many planned adoptions. Also, the Tuohys happen to be conservative Christians like we are, and we don’t normally get to see families like that on screen, at least in movies that are watchable.
Apparently, this makes me a racist.
You see, Michael Oher happens to be black, and the Tuohys happen to be white. I actually think that’s pretty cool, especially because they live in Tennessee, and what gets us farther from the evil days of segregation than an increased number of mixed-race families? One would assume that liberals especially would be excited about that, right?
Not so fast. The other day, after we saw the trailer again (we get choked up every single time), I casually mentioned that it wouldn’t shock me if some critics complained that the movie was a “typical white person saves a black person” story. Call it a hunch. I emailed a smart writer friend and mentioned that I’d like to write an article predicting the coming backlash, and he said I might want to reconsider because I could look “strident” if I was wrong. My immediate reaction was one of indignance as I thought angrily to myself, “What does ’strident’ mean?”
Not wanting to look “harsh, grating, or discordant,” I did some quick research and found that my article could no longer be a prediction, as the backlash has already started. I did a search for The Blind Side, criticism,” and five of the first ten items were blogs or articles about the racist undertones of the TRAILER. I saw the terms “racist” and “paternalistic” in nearly every article. In the Huffington Post, Mark Blankenship (whose bio mentions the NY Times, Variety, and Village Voice as outlets for his writing–shocking) wrote “The song (in the trailer) is called ‘How to Save a Life,’ a title that suggests the trailer’s breathtaking paternalism.”
Here is the definition of paternalistic: A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities. (emphasis added)
Wow.
Seeing as how these critics no doubt would consider health care, food, clothing, and shelter to be RIGHTS, and the trailer shows the Tuohys providing these for Michael, calling it “paternalistic” would seem to be a contradiction, hm? They also provided him with a top-notch private high school education and helped him go from having a GPA under 1.0 to making the dean’s list at a Division I college. He’s now a millionaire because of their efforts. No rights or responsibilities? Really?
Of course, if a movie came out showing white people in the government providing all this for Michael, it’d be a triumph of social justice, but a movie showing rich white people doing it on their own is “paternalistic” or a reinforcement of racist undertones in film. Food stamps? Good. Praying over a massive Thanksgiving meal in a huge dining room? Paternalistic.
The title of Blankenship’s piece is, “Should We Want Movies Like The Blind Side?” Think about that question. My first response would be:
It’s. A. True. Story.
Because art is supposed to reflect life, and life is supposed to be inspired by art, the question is basically, “should we want stories like this?” Do we want to see stories about homeless kids being adopted by strong nuclear families and steered towards success? Gee, I don’t know.
If you want to make the issue about race, let’s consider that a disproportionate number of black children are poor, in foster care, living with neither biological parent; supervised by a child welfare agency; or living with a single parent. Over 70% of black kids are born out of wedlock. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that we would want some of those kids adopted? Who cares what color the adoptive parents are, and if you do care, as critics of the film obviously do, doesn’t that make YOU the racist?
With “The Blind Side,” one cannot separate art from life. It’s a true story. Michael Oher was black, the Tuohys were white. Michael Oher was poor and homeless, the Tuohys were rich and lived in a huge house. Michael Oher repeated 1st and 2nd grade and attended 11 different schools in nine years; the Tuohy kids attended private schools their whole lives. Michael Oher’s mom was a crack addict, his father absentee, ultimately murdered when Michael was a high school senior. Now he has a mother and a father who not only didn’t abandon him, but who cared enough about him to take him into their home and family when he was a 16-year old, 6 ft. 4 in, 300 pound stranger. It’s all true. If the movie is racist or paternalistic or stereotypical or cliched or sappy for depicting it, then so is the story itself.
Would it have been a better, less paternalistic story if a family from his black neighborhood had taken him in? We’ll never know. Would it have been better if Gil Netter and 20th-Century Fox, in an effort to avoid racism or paternalism, resisted making this film because the Tuohys happened to be white, or perhaps changed the story to make it a white kid?
Thankfully, we’ll never know that either.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
181 Comments
Let's see; a BLACK KID is raised by a rich WHITE FAMILY after he is abandoned by his black father.
He goes to exclusive high schools. He then goes to Ivy League colleges, where is turns his life around and goes on to great success — during which time he spends much time thanking in WHITE FAMILY, especially his WHITE GRANDMOTHER.
Then he's elected PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Mmmm.
of course race matters. but the difference is how it matters.
Some would want us to focus on the racist rich white family because that it what they expect.
a non-greedy, non-racist, non-hateful christian family can't exist in some minds.
check out where the highest rates of inter-racial adoptions occur. It aint on the hoity toity coasts or in hollywood
Let's see; a MIXED RACE KID is raised by his WHITE MOTHER'S WHITE FAMILY after he is abandoned by his black father.
He goes to exclusive high schools. He then goes to Ivy League colleges, where is turns his life around and goes on to great success as a community organizer — during which time he spends much time calling his WHITE GRANDMOTHER A RACIST and attends a black separatist church who DESPISES WHITE PEOPLE.
Then he's elected PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Mmmm.
A few of similarities huh?! by the looks of the trailers, It looks too sappy for me. And I'm surprised that it would get bad reviews. I thought this is the type of movies that PC minded critics loved especially with 0bumble in the WH. I'm gonna have to pass on this one, as it will be on TBS/TNT/USA sometime soon in heavy rotation.
The movie points out a very uncomfortable fact for liberals. Conservative/Religious people of ALL colors are far more loving and generous than your basic dime store liberal. They don't have to be told to do the right thing by a false Messiah (the ONE), they have real, deeply held beliefs that are generally good and generous.
Paternalistic: A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities.
For liberals, that´s a feature not a bug. Their real gripe is that a movie may undermine our obsession with race, class and gender which they need to divide people so they can gain enough power to social-engineer their utopian vision.
Note that Oher is the very opposite of the "magic negro" often seen in movies. You see, liberals like the concept of the magic negro. They just don´t want anyone else to appropriate it.
Great take on the critics… Unfortunately your prediction will be proven correct. These kind of films always fall victim to whatever current politics are being discussed. A good majority of the so called "movie critics," now are nothing more than political idealogues impersonating critics just to push their agendas.
I am not surprised by the critisim of a movie that has not been released yet. I am saddened but not surprised. I hope that this movie does well in wide release and I also secretly hope that these race baiters and race promoters keep up thier cries of racism. It will only highlight how much damage these types really do and maybe help some liberal leaning types to see how they have been manipultated for so long.
I read the book and have seen the trailer. The book is not paternalistic or racist; the trailer is trite and paternalistic. Witness . . . did you notice that in the trailer, the Michael Oher character is only shown doing all kinds of physical things in the trailer, but barely speaks? In the book, however, you learned about him and his life, his thoughts, his decision-making process, all from his mouth. In that sense, the trailer sells the book short. It looks like another movie about a defective Black person and the white folks who fixed him — a "Radio" for the aughts.
The central fallacy of this review of the reviews, however, is that he does not actually address the trailer (which sucks) and why it was criticized as paternalistic but the book wasn't. Instead, he tries to draw political conclusions about the reviewers. Very weak, but about what you expect from a Breitbart post.
Lastly, the fact that the movie has not been screened speaks pooly of the studio's confidence in the product. I hope Michael Lewis got his money on the front end.
I'll bet the intrepid critic has nothing to say about Radio, about an African-American who also happens to be mentally challenged. The rub, not doubt, being that there is nothing Christian about the movie.
I was once in a course where we read a bunch of Dickens' novels. While we were reading Great Expectations, another, "feminist", student said that it was appalling that Dickens would represent the burly, good-hearted blacksmith Joe as being beaten by his shrewish wife, because statistically it is usually men who beat their wives, yadda yadda.
So, what? Are novels meant to be statistically valid representations of life? I notice that Dickens never represents his characters wiping their asses, either, although that is a part of most people's daily ritual.
It would be interesting to find what these same critics had to say about the paternalism in "Glory Road."
In his Preface to The Picture of Dorian Grey, Wilde said:
"The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.
"The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass."
Nothing has changed.
ARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!
I am so sick of Hollywood and the Cultural Left! Why do we allow them in our lives? Why do we watch their movies? Why do we buy those stupid rags with the paparazzi pix in 'em?
America… This sounds like a GREAT FILM. Go see it. Buy 10 DVDs and give them as Christmas gifts. Celebrate this new strain of conservative-values-celebrating film makers. And, turn your back (and your wallet) on the Left of Hollywood.
Thx for stirring the pot, Dallas.
Eagerly awaiting the New Hollywood.
"Do we want to see stories about homeless kids being adopted by strong nuclear families and steered towards success?"
Yes. Do they have to be as pandering, trite, histrionic, and schmaltzy as The Blind Side looks? No.
Good review. I wasn't going to see this film, but now I think I will. I suspect if the makers of this film had reversed the situation — rich black family takes in a poor, homeless white kid, the propaganda critics and propaganda media would tout it as the best movie ever made because it shows what real losers "ice people" are and how loving and kind and brilliant the "sun people" are (Reverend Wright's assessment ). It would be the counter to the white guys in their hoodies breaking into the Brinks (now sold to some other company) protected house.
it seems that most film adaptations sell the books short. But this is not a review of the book. it is a review of the reviewers based up on his knowledge of the trailer.
i must have missed your point.
It seems to me however that many movie trailers are misleading inaccurate depictions of the films.
I'm so close to giving up on these kinds of blogs and websites. Your post is exhibit 'A'. You started to make an interesting counterpoint to the posted article that I was interested in reading and then you follow it up with this:
"Very weak, but about what you expect from a Breitbart post."
You came here for the expressed purpose of posting negatively about whatever you may have read. That, of course, makes your argument agenda-driven and not a true response and a waste of time.
Too bad.
Im not God. I cant look into people's hearts, so where the hearts are of the people that surround the adoptee I have no idea. But as an adoptee myself, I feel for the Real Life adoptee of this story. He is in an in-between world. Being in the middle SUCKS. And skin-color, in his case, just makes it that more painfully obvious. He is my brother in ways non-adoptees will never understand. I pray for him.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Margie Nelsen. Margie Nelsen said: RT @bighollywood: ‘The Blind Side’: Predictable Critics, Predictable Criticism http://bit.ly/2ZSinK [...]
Transparency notice: I've not seen this movie yet either, so my comment here is strictly in response to Dallas Jenkins' piece here at BH… First and foremost? Well said, Mr. Jenkins!
"… The title of [Mark] Blankenship’s piece is, “Should We Want Movies Like The Blind Side?” Think about that question. My first response would be: It’s. A. True. Story. … … …"
Thirty years ago, after I read the book "Midnight Express", I went eagerly to see the movie, only to discover that Oliver Stone took the remarkable True Story of Billy Hayes' arrest, conviction, imprisonment and eventual amazing escape from a hellish prison in Turkey and turned it into an utterly gratuitous piece of fiction, for no greater apparent reason than because he (or someone) thought it made a better story…
Wait a minute. Oliver Stone? Oh, yeah, he won an Oscar for that screenplay, didn't he? Well, I guess it's okay then… nevermind.
Stone is just a poster-child [e pluribus unum!!] for an entire industry that never lets the Truth get in the way of telling a Good Story. If "The Blind Side" actually does stick to the True Story, they ought to award a Special Oscar just for the occasion… yeah, right, like *that* is ever gonna happen. [*sigh*]
Oh, wait. Don't they give out Oscars for Documentaries? Yeah… Michael Moore has one of those, doesn't he?
Hmm. I guess it's a good thing we don't take Hollywood seriously, or we could get *really* confused, eh?
)
~DeepWheat
liberals are racist conservatives want people to do well for them selves not white , black, Hispanic, Asian people they want people to do well. "the content of ones character not the color of ones skin" If only the black community could have a leader like that again,he'd probably be called a uncle tom.
Yeah, we don't want white families saving black people. That's the governments job.
Yet another movie that sees Hollywood 'experimenting' with racial intergration themes. The family are white Christians who live in south so that automatically qualifies them as being in need of 'racial sensitivity' according to Hollywood. Has the guy who wrote this movie ever been to Tennesee?…Or is this movie going to be filled with the usual stereotypes and cliche's?…
I guess what we're all failing to understand is that it's only ok for white folks to help poor blacks if you're a liberal nutter from Hollyweird and you're adopting them from Africa.
I wonder if the critics would change their tune if the adoptive family were rich white atheists living in Vermont instead?
I know, stupid question….
Dan — I don't suppose it crossed the mind of the "feminist" dimwit to commend the genius of Dickens? Writing from 1837 to his death aged 58, Charles Dickens created powerful female characters within the limitations of actual sociey he satirized. I think he predated Betty Frieden by a century.
Are you kidding, David? Where would the grievance have been in that?
I guess they won't be making THAT movie. Too paternalistic.
I have some friends with 5 kids – two bio, one from China, one hispanic and one from Ethiopia. They are Italian. And Christian. I am sure the 3 adopted kids won't give a hoot about PC as they go on to lead decent lives.
Great review, I actually want to see this now. Thanks! Excellent take on the lib. critics, by the way…I generally see the movies they hate, and avoid the ones they love, because they can't get away from personal bias when they write a critique. But they sure are open-minded…
since you have some insight on the subject, where do you stand on trans-racial adoption? do cons out weigh pros?
I'll pass, sorry, but, formulaic Hollywood feel good pieces are cloyingly preachy and insulting. I'm sure inferred in this film is the notion that this white family is exceptional when I personally have known many like them, adoptive white parents raising black, asian and bi-racial children with love and no desire for applause below the radar.
You can count on at least one gratuitous scene where this family faces a white backlash by some Red Neck neighbor which is far from today's reality, but, it will be embedded somewhere or the script wouldn't pass. approval. Count on it.
for someone who read the book, you should at least know his last name is Oher
I was going to wait on the dvd, as usual do except for the latest sci-fi or super hero movie, but maybe I will break down and go to the theatre to stick one in their eye.
Hey folks:
CJinMadison has it right. We HAVE to see this movie, ALL OF US, even though it may be hackneyed and syrupy and all sorts of negatives…
Do we want MORE Matt Damon "Green Zone" garbage? Of course not!
SO, we have to vote with our dollars here, folks…this is how we try to swerve the wheel…
I'm going. I hope you do, too…
The art-house version of this movie would go something like this…
Marginalized black youth is taken in by a white "Christian" family.
The family are really just a bunch of hypocrites and caught up in surreptitious affairs/drug use/drinking, etc.
Young black man is compassionately mentored by a wise black man/woman (alternately an enlightened white professor reliably played by Robert Redford) and shown how the white family are hypocrites and basically evil. The young man goes on to get a degree in African Studies (or linguistics)….Alternately he may be falsely accused of rape by a white woman and shot by racist cops.
The white family destroys themselves in an alcohol fueled spree of murder and suicide.
Ta Da! Liberal Happy ending!
spinalcracker,
We all have to see this, man…
Yeah, I'm sure the Dali Bama wants comparisons to him. But we have to try to get Hollyweird off their crap with chocolate sauce kick, and with the choices out there right now, this is our best shot, friend…
I will see this movie opening night. I have several indirect connections to this story and I am eager to see if the movie stays true to details. My kids go to Briarcrest Christian School which is the school Michael went to and is depicted in the movie under a different name. I also attended Ole Miss and have made every home football game since graduating there in the ealy nineties so I have followed Michael's story over several years.
In real life the Tuohys are just "good people". If you saw them at a BCHS football game with faded jeans and sweatshirts you would think they are just like the rest of us "fly-over country" folks. If you spent any time with them it would become obvious that their personal success is very much based on their core values, principles, and most of all – FAITH.
Plus it could never happen anyway. Who'd believe it?
I've read the book. I've seen interviews with Michael Oher and the Tuohys. I think the trailer with the interviews included in it is a much better representation of the story than the first trailers are, even though they do make me tear up. I've seen several cases where people who griped about the trailer, but then saw the movie come out with a much different impression.
In many of the interviews with the Tuohys, they give the credit for this amazing story to Michael Oher where so much of the credit deservedly goes. They say he's an exceptionally bright kid who worked five to six hours every single night to improve his grades so he would qualify to go to college. They provided the nuture, yes, but it was Michael who is the inspiration of this story. Also, it was Tony Hamilton, an African-American man, who first brought Michael to Briarcrest.
From what I can tell, many people critics obviously haven't read the book. They criticize certain scenes like the one where S.J. tells him to smile at people. While it, in reality, wasn't S.J. who said but a teacher, that did happen. They complain he comes across as too quiet. Michael in the beginning barely spoke and walked around with his head down all the time. He didn't know what an ocean, a bird's nest, or a noun were. It's just reality, and thank God, a reality that has been completely altered.
I think John Lee Hancock said it best, "It's like a miracle, and I think that's a far more interesting element than any racial aspect of it. Leigh Anne Tuohy didn't stop that car to pick up that kid because he was African-American. She stopped that car to pick up that kid because he was cold."
rofl.
[...] here: ‘The Blind Side’: Predictable Critics, Predictable Criticism This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
very well said. Liberals want to be seen doing good more than actually doing it.
I will see it because I love playing the Offensive line.
Multiculturalism is paternalistic and racist, not this story.
To answer your questions, I don't. Not unless I get them for free, and even then pass up most of them. I still want a review of the actual movie, as this is a Hollyweird creation. Conservative viewpoints often come by accident rather than design.
the problem with our cultural elite isn't that they don't like movies about whites helping blacks. the real problem is that most of these people are essentially marxists. that is, they follow the marxist paradigm of evaluating artistic worth by attaching it to some relevant ideology. so, when the white protaganist helps poor brown people through leftist-approved methods (eg government, social work, community organizing, legal work, etc.) it's ok. it's only when the white in question represent any sort of traditional family or individualist ethic that the movie critics at the NY Times get worked up.
it's really sad, because at the end of the day these people are only interested in so-called disenfranchised populations as a means of vindicating their own personal morality tale. "i'm a good person because i help brown people; not like those mean, intolerant republicans/christians."
For all those chomping on their bits to see this movie, there should be a warning label: Made By Hollyweird. I'll see it when I believe it. Don't throw good money away to the cesspool on account of a trailer. Buy the book instead.
Look…liberals aren't happy unless they're unhappy. What a waste.
I heard a radio interview with the book's author several months ago. When I heard they were making a movie of it my first thought was "how will they handle the religious nature of the story". The author made clear in the interview that the Thouy's faith is not a side note – it is central to the true story. I expect that aspect of the story will be largely papered over.
I can draw a political conclusion about you. And that is after all the point. When criticism of a work is so obviously politically motivated it needs to be pointed out.
But for liberals silencing criticism is top priority. B-Rod, we know your stick, we've seen these hackneyed old strategies so many times we just chuckle.
What angers the Left so much also is this reality: Americans are by far (it's not even close) the most charitable people in the world, and Conservative Americans are by far more charitable than Liberals. This is NOT just about religion. Free market societies generate more charitable people than Socialist ones because of two reasons: 1) Obviously, people living in a Free market have more disposable income, and 2) Freedom and the happiness that stems from it lead people to want to share their wealth VOLUNTARILY to make their neighborhood/state/ country a better and happier place. The Liberals don't want people to realize that VOLUNTARY charity dies in Socialist countries.
I heard this story for the first time last year on College Game Day on ESPN, and I can't wait to see the movie. So what if it's sappy or whatever. It's a nice story! I'd rather see something like this anyday over the typical violent, stupid Hollywood fare.
"It's a true story."
That is the best point made in this article. It doesn't matter what critics say, what the motives or the skills of the filmmakers were, what the vast left-wing race-hustling political-academic-entertainment-industrial complex thinks – it's a true story.
No matter they spin it, the plot is this: a rich, white, Southern, Christian family brings a lost black boy into its midst, and saves him. How? By living out their Christian values. Only a numb-skull would fail to see that, while they can't all be great football players, all the lost black boys can be saved, and saved best, this way.
Every culture has a place in it where all may meet as equals. In the South it happens to be on a football field. If there is a difference, it is that Southerners, black and white, still agree that the law ensuring they meet as equals comes from God, not from man.
With respect, I believe you intended to say Schtick. Just thought I would point it out before some lib douche does.
Amen
remember this- if it isn't blind praise of the New Order then it's criticism…
Facts be damned. White, middle class (could they be Christian as well?) law abiding folk are to be ridiculed, and marginalized at every turn. And that being, as the above post most likely predicts, the obligatory racist neighbors and what have you to make it palatable to the left.
No matter. They'll hate it anyway…
An uplifting story, triumph over hardship, lives changed for the better…wow, a movie I actually want to see.
I'm so sick of the endless parade of movies and television shows that focus on what's wrong with people and society and, conversely, mock what's right. Crime, greed, cheating spouses, selfishness, ruthless behavior, etc., is the mainstay.
No, it would have to be a rich, mixed race, happily married, athiest, lesbian couple, living in a big farm house in Vermont,
Of course, the antagonists would be the Christian, conservative, white, highly dysfunctional family living in the bigger farm house up the road.
I am a (dare I say, conservative) film critic and have already written my review. Here's an excerpt:
"Some have found fault with the story of Oher and his relationship with the Touhys as some sort of racial controversy. Readers could take notice I didn't mention that Oher is black and the Touhys are white southern conservatives. I barely noticed, and neither should anybody else. The Blind Side is not a story about race; it's a touching true story about how a little bit of charity can change the lives of those who give and receive from their hearts."
Dallas, For what it's worth, most of the comments to Blankenship's piece at HuffPo are just as negative as your opining here. Sure, there are few lefty morons even more spiteful than Blankenship, but whattaya want? It's HuffPo. Lefty Moron Central!
I'm also sure Blankenship's criticism of that old famous heartwarming movie about a poor white boy taken in and raised by a black family would have been much less cynical. That poor white boy may not have gone on to make millions like Michael Oher, but he did get his name in the phone book. You may remember him as The Jerk
Your version would already have the critics buzzing about Academy Award nominations instead of banging us over the head with the race card.
I'm a Black conservative woman and I don't plan to see Blind Side for the same reason I refused to see Precious, The Soloist, Freedom Writers, etc. I hate these movies that continually portray Black people in America as victims! Mike Oher's story is beautiful and I can appreciate it as a Christian, but I cringe at another film that shows Black people not being able to do for themselves in the greatest country on earth.
Why can't Hollywood make films that show a positive and strong Black middle-class families where the mother and father are educated, and married. One of the reasons I loved Fireproof was because Kirk Cameron's bestfriend at work was a good Black man who encouraged him to fight for his marriage. They were equals, but Kirk's admiration for his friend was obvious. I'll continue to support films like that any chance I get.
My husband and I have adopted transracially, and let me tell you, it's a minefield. We have to be o-so-careful of not implying we were "saving" our child (from a crappy life in a foreign orphanage, probably to be turned out to be a prostitute at age 14). But instead that we've done her a great injury by depriving her of a culture and country that threw her away. Or else we'll offend liberal sensibilities. Yes, white people (and i'm only soso white, being hispanic american) better be ashamed of saving kids. It shows us to be cultural imperialists and racially insensitive. Go figure.
better children should suffer, than be objects of benevolence and "paternalism"
I live in Memphis and am very familiar with the Oher story. I followed his progress through high school because of my interest in sports and was hoping he would sign with Tennessee. He signed with Ole Miss instead and there's a good reason why he choose that school.
Sean Tuohy, Michael's father, graduated from Ole Miss and also played basketball for the Rebels. He is currently the color commentator for the Memphis Grizzlies NBA team.
Oher attended high school at Briarcrest, one of the many fine private schools in Memphis. For him to overcome his educational deficiencies and go on to earn Dean's List honors at Ole Miss is proof positive that good parenting is paramount in a child's education.
I see nothing wrong with anyone using their athletic abilities to support their educational goals, and I certainly don't believe that anything the Tuohy's did should be open to any criticism. Period.
I saw a brief story on this kid during the run up to the NFL draft. It brought tears to my eyes. Very heartwarming.
An aside, there are lots of things to consider when taking in a kid these days. Not the least is being sued or extorted by birthparents. I think this story, where it turned out so well for this kid should be touted as much as possible. Maybe others will be willing to put aside their rightful fears and help a kid in need.
How can you criticize the backlash, if you haven't seen the film ? My first impression is "white family saves black man", but that's just it, first impression.
The movie is what your are going to CHOOSE to get out of it. People who need to dote on the fictitious 'plight of the black man' cruch, will, without basis, judge the movie poorly. People who see the selfless and Christian acts of love toward a man in a bad situation in his life, will judge the movie the way it was intended. Simple as that. We have this new age of automatically assuming the worst about everything and people who want to keep that train rolling will continually build and rebuild their straw man of racism. When is the black community going to wake up and realize that you are only doing this to yourselves. If you don't agree then explain why it's black people who degrade other blacks for 'trying to act white' (aka doing something with their lives and not waiting for a handout). Michael Oher's story is one of hope and love. Stop trying to leech attention for yourselves and shut up.
Did you miss the part about this being a true story? Google "the guy"…It's a TRUE story…believe that means he's been to Tennessee. A state I do love because the people are, for the most part, gracious and pleasant.
In a perfect world Sandra would be one of the good ones.
"With “The Blind Side,” one cannot separate art from life. It’s a true story. Michael Oher was black, the Tuohys were white. "
Dude. You're (I think) in Hollywood. The lines of art and life are as blurred as Olympic Blvd and Sepulveda is congested on a Friday evening.
Ms. Bullock. Is she the real deal or just the product of wise PR?
Don't forget the kid was born in a foreign land.
Just remember the number one rule of cinema: if liberals hate it then it must be great.
I'm pretty sure Hawaii is not a foreign land. And Obama's white family was not rich by any means. Nice try.
It just looks corny and cliched. Perceived racial stereotypes aside (and I admit as a black person my first response to the trailer was a groan), I just feel I've tread this ground too many times. I'm just as wary of "Precious–" a film that shows the absolute worst side of the black community, but is made and endorsed by the highest profile blacks in America. However, consistent or not, I'll probably see that one because of what I've heard of the performances. I suppose extremes make news…ie there are few films that ever features ordinary guy lives ordinary, honest life, dies in his bed at 100 because that would be too dull. Personally I'm holding out hope for "The Frog Princess" to quietly make film history without its uniqueness (1st black DIsney Princess) being its sole focal point.
In my state, the adoption authorities refused to place black kids with white families even though there weren't enough black families willing to adopt because they maintained it was racist to facilitate mixed race adoptions. So the black kids went without families even tho there were families willing, even eager, to take them.
The fact is, the liberals don't care how much misery their policies create as long as they follow their religion.
As one who took in a young, black kid whose mother had died of leukemia when he was 8 and whose father was completely unknown, I intend to see this film. There are some unique problems in such a situation sometimes, but even in small-town Texas (where I lived at the time) I wasn't faced with any racism by my white neighbors. The young man went on to college at Texas Tech and played football there for four years. He didn't go on to play pro football, but he married and raised two kids of his own PLUS a young, orphaned cousin of his wife. (Payback to me, as we'd agreed.) He's now a grandfather! Such things happen under the radar all the time. It's just not in the left's best interest to tell about them. I intend to go see this movie (something I rarely ever do any more.)
Yes, I always enjoy seeing the tax returns of politicians. The charitable gifts made by some rich liberals is most amusing if not terribly sad. I don't remember the particulars but weren't the contributions of the Clintons one year (after they were making big bucks) like $3,000 or less and included second hand clothing? AMAZING!
I'll maybe watch this when it's on DVD or at the $1.00 theatre. I like sports and this story is an amazing example of someone turning their life around with plenty of help from many great people.
Oh, I'll also watch to see the gorgeous Sandra Bullock. Looking at the above picture, is that really her backside?
Nice. The Michael Oher character's backside….? Not so much….
Sandra B's butt is as big as the football players. Good Lord!
So what now, let the kid rot?
I forgot to add. He was also born out of wedlock — such a quaint phrase! The guy is a walking stereotype.
Personally, I like exploding helicopters in a movie.
But I'm surprised at some of the criticism expecting that this simply *must* be a bad movie.
I'll make a prediction of my own. This movie will be *highly* successful over the holidays.
Why? Yes, because it is probably a great movie. Yes, because almost no one listens to the self-righteous twits who find racism in everything other than a few like-minded twits. (There were also claims that "Precious" was racist.) And yes, because the lack of exploding helicopters equates to a far lower price tag that has to earn out to count as making money. But *mostly* because family movies tend to do very well because everyone in the family can go, the kids *and* grandma.
Once again…this is a TRUE story so how could it be formulaic?
Felicia, I do agree with you that there should be more portrayals of positive strong Black middle-class families, like on The Cosby Show, because I also know they are out there. I mean, it must be frustrating to have made it in this country of your own sweat, blood and tears and not have anyone recognize the fact that despite all the "alleged" racism in this country, there are successful black families out there, and instead just portray a lot of "victimhood".
On the other hand, the statistics for the black community in the US are still not good, as Bill Cosby pointed out a while back. So I would say that, as with anything else, we need a health helping of the positive as you suggested, but also a healthy helping of a negative going to a positive, especially because more often than not, the black person or familiy went from negative to positive following basic "conservative" ideals of personal responsibility and working hard, rather than crying about being a victim.
I think we need a little bit of both, is my basic point.
God Bless.
I've often found that if I see the words "criticlly acclaimed" on a movie trailer, it's probably preachy liberal drivel, pornographic, or revisionist history.
One thing that the author and posters failed to take into account is the opposite of this movie (which the leftists call "paternalistic"), and that is the Magic Negro movies where it's always the black person that helps out the white person (or the Native American, or the Asian, or whatever other race there is other than White, because apparently White people are stupid until they hang around minorities).
Those movies seem to be "okay" in the eyes of the liberals. But a true story of a white Christian family helping out a young black man, taking him in and helping him achieve personal responsibility so that he could go on to be successful is wrong?
Again, who are the racists?
So? Who has seen his birth certificate? (NB: NOT a "certificate of live birth", which is not a legal document, but the "birth certificate" – yes Virginia, there is a difference)
Lifetime is much more likely. Or Oprah's channel.
Marley and Me, huge offender.
I don't care what it's politics are (I'm told by sports-reporting fans that the book was more about the evoling importance of Left Tackles in the NFL that allowed players like Oher to become big-money prospects, and that it's actually somewhat cynical about the motives of the family that adopted him) The movie looks gut-bustingly awful. Swap-out Anna Faris for Bullock and – aside from a better looking, more talented lead – this trailer would be a spot-on parody of schmaltzy Oscar-bait "inspirational" tripe.
"Yer changin' that boys life." "No… he's changin' MINE."
"I never had one my own before." "A room of you're own?" "…a BED."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!?? No even Paul Haggis would try to get away with Lifetime crap like that. Akiva freakin' Goldsman wouldn't let that survive the first draft. I don't care if "the real people" said it. Nobody ever said LIFE was a good screenwriter – it's GARBAGE dialogue.
(continued)
I would say anytime a child can be saved from the hell of being taken care of by government officials will always be a good thing, regardless of skin color. Race should no longer be a factor in such decisions. The fact that it is pointed out is what should be written about.
(continued)
As to the race issue, it would seem to me that it's playing both sides – here's a story that both Guilty White Liberals and Self-Righteous White Conservatives can love: Liberals can reaffirm their belief that the poor can ONLY be helped by the grace of their intervention, as opposed to pulling themselves up; while Conservatives can bask in the confirmation that the regenerative-glow of the traditional nuclear family really IS the cure for any and all ills – and they can BOTH rest easy in the embrace of Hollywood's favorite "safe" racial-harmony paradigm: The Black Man as sub-intelligent brute hulk tamed and turned toward something useful by the charity of his White benefactors.
So let me get this straight…since I am a white, conservative, Christian woman I can't help black people. In fact, I probably shouldn't help anyone because it can only be out of self gratification. Thanks for clarifying. What a great encouragement you are society.
So let me get this straight…since I am a white, conservative, Christian woman I can't help black people. In fact, I probably shouldn't help anyone because it can only be out of self gratification. Thanks for clarifying. What a great encouragement you are society.
Paternalistic: A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner,
Funny, I keep hearing ads on the radio asking for Dad's to foster-father kids. They never say white dad's for black kids need not apply. They do say "You don't have to be perfect to be a parent.
Isn't is grand we're all so post racial under Obama?
or at least not a kenyon
we have one to many of those
amazing how those horrible whitey people get bit on the butt by the kenyon, err, blacks
I read the book as a football fan. What was obvious is that Lewis pulled his punches about the Tuohys because Sean Tuohy was a good friend. He never asked if the Tuohys had taken in nay other homeless children before or after Michael Oher. The question as to whether they practically recruited a left tackle to Ole Miss is never asked. Oher, now on the gravy train, isn't about to question it. Not saying the Tuohys or evil or bad, merely noting questions went unasked.
So now of course Holywood takes the single glaring w eakness of an otherwise interesting book and makes that the centerpiece of a feel good BS movie. Just grand. May be they didn't make "Moneyball" because it didn't have a happy ending.
Actually, as a southern liberal, I think this movie looks fantastic. I quite like the Christians in the south who put their money where their values are. However, liberal or conservative, christian or not, most wealthy people I know like to hoard their money and spend it on themselves, usually for stupid things. The Touhy's are a nice exception.
Interestingly enough, I have more issues about how people personally translate the lessons of this story. As the article expresses above, you could interpret this as a story of how a white christian family redeemed an impoverished boy (White man's burden). But Mrs. Tuohy herself said "He saved me." She expresses that she's the lucky one.
This is the same conversation I have with people about adoption from other countries. Either people are sanctimonious about how lucky the kid is to get adopted, or they feel blessed to have the privilege of being parents.
Of course, the real luck is to be able to find love and acceptance period. No matter which side of the line you are.
For me, the message of the film is that if we looked at a big scary black kid with poor grades and a terrible background, and thought "I believe in this kid" and "I love this kid, he is as much my family as my own blood, and he deserves better than he's got" And then we went on to invest vast amounts of our personal time and emotions in that kid so he could succeed in this world, then the world would be a better, more christlike place.
Let's face it, there's a lot of different types of liberals, and a lot of different types of Christians. I like, admire, and respect Christians who actively practice the golden rule. Who aren't sanctimonious about their values, but practice them forthrightly with deep integrity. I like liberals who do the same.
These people are rare on both sides of the line. Most people I know are hypocrites in one way or another. We talk a good game about how to fix the world, but we are mostly caught up in our own personal dramas, and spend money on our own personal problems.
If all Christians practiced what they preached we'd be living in a utopia (in spite of all the liberals behaving exactly as they do today). If all liberals practiced what they preached we'd also be living in utopia (in spite of christians behaving exactly as they do today.) What we have is a selfish people problem. And if a selfish people problem was easy to fix, Jesus wouldn't have needed to die on a cross.
Just my two cents. And I doubt you'll hear that review from any liberal or conservative film critic.
I guess I'm an confused…I heard about the story and thought, "Wow, what an amazing tale of the triumph of the human spirit." with virtually no regard to race, now I'm reading that no matter the intention of the story, or indeed the facts of what transpired, since it's not sprinkled with rainbows and puppydogs, it's less positive? Really?
You must be logged in to post a comment.